Cochlear implantation and cued speech internationally

[R2D2]

If USA had the same approach as Sweden, deaf community would still look at it from their own angle....
Main difference between Sweden and USA is how healthcare is set up... That makes the difference, and makes it possible for such a high percentage of deaf children with (bi-lateral) CI....
Same for Norway....

Is Norway quite similar to Sweden in its approach? I mean, did you and your wife learn sign of your own volition once you discovered Lotte was deaf or did you get a lot of support from the government to do that?

 

[jillio]

Cued speech has been around for awhile. My guess is this is the advantage over ASL.

"Why is Cued Speech so successful? Hearing people use their knowledge of the sounds of English when they learn to cue. Deaf children brought up with Cued Speech work in the opposite way. They acquire an internal model of sound-based English through Cued Speech - even if they can't hear it. Once the implant gives them access to speech sounds these can be plotted onto the model of sound-based English they have already internalised. Belgian research - and many case studies - demonstrates that children brought up with Cued Speech can think in sound-based language.(4)

It is this visual access to sound-based language that enables a deaf child to acquire an understanding of spoken language without delay pre-implant and also uniquely primes the child for the acquisition of spoken language when it becomes available post implant. As Jane Smith, with her 20 years experience, said: `Cued Speech helps clarify and verify what is heard; it actually accelerates the learning of language and listening' "

Cued speech has been around for 40 years. For some time, it became almost nonexistent in use because it did not prove to accomplish the goals it proposed. It is now seeing a revival due to the number of children being implanted. I suspect that it will repeat the same history this time around.

And clarifying and verifying is what it it most suited to, as an adjuct to lipreading and not as a method of language acquisition. Internalization of langauge is what is neccesary, and if a child has been exposed to sign early on, andthus internalized the concept of language, that will facilitate the learning of a second language such as English.

 

[Cloggy]

As I have stated num,erous times, cloggy, CI is not the issue. The assumption the a CI will allow a child to function the same way academically and socially as a hearing child is the issue for me. The children who perform best with CI are those exposed to both sign and speech in both their academic and social environments (marshark, et. al. 2005)

Excellent, this time with a reference attatched.... thanks....
btw... is that the article without the title.....?
I can find marshark, et. al. 2001, 2007, 1994 and 1998, but no 2005....
Can you be more specific?

What I am wondering about, is not if they can reach the same level, or achieve higher levels compared to speech only,
I am interested in - how many children without CI are left behind.

What, instead of comparing children that made it through school and highschool; comparing deaf children with CI and deaf children without CI and see how many have get to a certain level.
The question is.... What percentage of hearing children, deaf children with CI and deaf children without CI make it to a certain educational level..

 

[Cloggy]

CS is not a signed language.

Great remark! Not related to my post, but "soi". (sure I said "signlangage...)

CS is not even a language - I heared.

 

[shel90]

Cued speech has been around for awhile. My guess is this is the advantage over ASL.

"Why is Cued Speech so successful? Hearing people use their knowledge of the sounds of English when they learn to cue. Deaf children brought up with Cued Speech work in the opposite way. They acquire an internal model of sound-based English through Cued Speech - even if they can't hear it. Once the implant gives them access to speech sounds these can be plotted onto the model of sound-based English they have already internalised. Belgian research - and many case studies - demonstrates that children brought up with Cued Speech can think in sound-based language.(4)

It is this visual access to sound-based language that enables a deaf child to acquire an understanding of spoken language without delay pre-implant and also uniquely primes the child for the acquisition of spoken language when it becomes available post implant. As Jane Smith, with her 20 years experience, said: `Cued Speech helps clarify and verify what is heard; it actually accelerates the learning of language and listening' "

How does it have an advantage over ASL if deaf children of deaf parents are able to achieve literacy skills in English?

 

[jillio]

Excellent, this time with a reference attatched.... thanks....
btw... is that the article without the title.....?
I can find marshark, et. al. 2001, 2007, 1994 and 1998, but no 2005....
Can you be more specific?

What I am wondering about, is not if they can reach the same level, or achieve higher levels compared to speech only,
I am interested in - how many children without CI are left behind.

What, instead of comparing children that made it through school and highschool; comparing deaf children with CI and deaf children without CI and see how many have get to a certain level.
The question is.... What percentage of hearing children, deaf children with CI and deaf children without CI make it to a certain educational level..

Those comparisons have been done, and in fact, control groups of students without CIs were used in several of the studies used by Marshark, et.al. inthe literature review I referenced in another thread.

 

[besemiasno]

For many d/Deaf people..

Oral method does not work for many d/Deaf people! Signs have been used by hearing babies before they could learn to speak! Making deaf babies wear cochlear implants just to learn a language by "hearing" it is ridiculous! There is something wrong with the picture. Hearing sign, deaf speak?

DEAF BILINGUAL COALITION

AGBell.info » New Deaf Bilingual Coalition Formed

Ella’s Flashlight » AGBell: Elephant in the Deaf Room

Best one of all:

DEAF WORLD AS EYE SEE IT » The Greatest Irony / Voice Interpreted - Encore Presentation!

 

[Cloggy]

Excellent, this time with a reference attatched.... thanks....
btw... is that the article without the title.....?
I can find marshark, et. al. 2001, 2007, 1994 and 1998, but no 2005....
Can you be more specific?

Those comparisons have been done, and in fact, control groups of students without CIs were used in several of the studies used by Marshark, et.al. inthe literature review I referenced in another thread.

.... so in short, without you trying to avoid answering the question, your reference to "Marshark 2005" was just bogus....

 

[Cloggy]

...........The children who perform best with CI are those exposed to both sign and speech in both their academic and social environments (marshark, et. al. 2005)

Apart from "(marshark, et. al. 2005)" being untracable (for me, but then again, what do I know... if you cannot find the title, how could I do it...) ...
I recall that children raised with cued speech and later CI had the highest scores.. (cloggy, et. al. 2007)

 

[Cloggy]

Is Norway quite similar to Sweden in its approach? I mean, did you and your wife learn sign of your own volition once you discovered Lotte was deaf or did you get a lot of support from the government to do that?

Full support, and information from the government organisations. Signlanguage has a high status. CS is not even heared of over here..

 

[shel90]

Oral method does not work for many d/Deaf people! Signs have been used by hearing babies before they could learn to speak! Making deaf babies wear cochlear implants just to learn a language by "hearing" it is ridiculous! There is something wrong with the picture. Hearing sign, deaf speak?

Yea, I see the irony of it. What burns me is that some people believe that deaf children shouldn't be exposed to sign for fear it would interfere with their ability to speak but it is ok for hearing children to learn sign. I think that is pretty sad.

 

[jillio]

The US-label is self-inflicted.... The "way to promote and oral philosophy and assimilation into hearing culture." is the way the "deaf community here in the states" is wants to see it...

If USA had the same approach as Sweden, deaf community would still look at it from their own angle....
Main difference between Sweden and USA is how healthcare is set up... That makes the difference, and makes it possible for such a high percentage of deaf children with (bi-lateral) CI....
Same for Norway....

No, cloggy, we are not talking about health care. We are talkingabout sociological and ccultural approaches to deafness.

 

[jillio]

Oral method does not work for many d/Deaf people! Signs have been used by hearing babies before they could learn to speak! Making deaf babies wear cochlear implants just to learn a language by "hearing" it is ridiculous! There is something wrong with the picture. Hearing sign, deaf speak?

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[jillio]

Great,
Can you send me some articles regarding "Deaf of deaf still achieve the highest literacy rates of all the groups. "
A title and the abstract will be fine as well, but the complete article would be great!
Thanks

It is in many of the books listed that your thread asked for.

 

[jillio]

Correct, like in Norway where learning to communicate with your childe and exposure to other deaf people is stimulated... But still, what percentage still choose for CI for their child????

And that is just the issue, cloggy. I have said it agian and again. CI is not the issue. The oralist philosphy and thnocentric cultural and linguistic attitudes that seem to go along with the CI is the problem.

 

[jillio]

Cued speech has been around for awhile. My guess is this is the advantage over ASL.

"Why is Cued Speech so successful? Hearing people use their knowledge of the sounds of English when they learn to cue. Deaf children brought up with Cued Speech work in the opposite way. They acquire an internal model of sound-based English through Cued Speech - even if they can't hear it. Once the implant gives them access to speech sounds these can be plotted onto the model of sound-based English they have already internalised. Belgian research - and many case studies - demonstrates that children brought up with Cued Speech can think in sound-based language.(4)

It is this visual access to sound-based language that enables a deaf child to acquire an understanding of spoken language without delay pre-implant and also uniquely primes the child for the acquisition of spoken language when it becomes available post implant. As Jane Smith, with her 20 years experience, said: `Cued Speech helps clarify and verify what is heard; it actually accelerates the learning of language and listening' "

Some qualifications there...."learning of language".....the implication and unspoken assumption is "oral language" and "listening"....also implies adherence tothe oral philosophy. It is not a useful tool for language acquisition because while it may convey mechanical information, like the difference in the position of the speech producing anatomy in, for example, a "B" and a "P", it does not assist in conveying conceptual information. If a child does not get that conceptual information,they are uinable to internalize language, and therefore, are very mechanical in their usage.

 

[jillio]

Those comparisons have been done, and in fact, control groups of students without CIs were used in several of the studies used by Marshark, et.al. inthe literature review I referenced in another thread.

Nope, not bogus at all. Standard for APA. And I told youw here to find the article. That is all that is required. If you wish to read it for yourself, then you will do as all thinking people do. Find it and read it.

 

[Cloggy]

Nope, not bogus at all. Standard for APA. And I told youw here to find the article. That is all that is required. If you wish to read it for yourself, then you will do as all thinking people do. Find it and read it.

Babbling along... and you should get the quote right..
So, you still haven't found the article...

 

[Cloggy]

Some qualifications there...."learning of language".....the implication and unspoken assumption is "oral language" and "listening"....also implies adherence tothe oral philosophy. It is not a useful tool for language acquisition because while it may convey mechanical information, like the difference in the position of the speech producing anatomy in, for example, a "B" and a "P", it does not assist in conveying conceptual information. If a child does not get that conceptual information,they are uinable to internalize language, and therefore, are very mechanical in their usage.

Not able to find that in any of the articles I found...... I found very positive results, especially when CS is used in combination with other tools and languages....
Can you provide some indication from where that comes from....

 

[jillio]

Not able to find that in any of the articles I found...... I found very positive results, especially when CS is used in combination with other tools and languages....
Can you provide some indication from where that comes from....

Exactly cloggy...the most positve results in CI students are found when other tools and languages are used. The most poitive results are found in CI students who are educated in a speech and sign environment. That is exactly what we have been saying all along.